[Quixote]

The best highway improvements (what is there to improve besides pavement?) come in the form of less people using them, which means more people using rail. If 67% of the funds ($80 billion) we’re allocated for transit capital and used to build rail mostly north of the 105, east of the LA River, and south of the 118 (in the north SFV), that would actually yield a true usable system with ridership around 1.5-2 million each weekday. That’s your traffic congestion relief right there.

Most people don’t seem to understand that just because a rail line doesn’t directly serve a particular region or community doesn’t mean that said region or community can’t or doesn’t benefit from the rail line being built. This idea of a rail line relieving congestion along a freeway it runs parallel to is precisely the type of fallacy that continues to hold back progress.

Metro’s a really conservative agency that just doesn’t know how to skillfully maneuver about. Washington’s decision to reduce rail service frequency past 8:00 just to save a few million dollars was absolutely egregious. And then Metro had the audacity to even wonder why ridership is down before asking the public for input on what they want. Metro gets a solid “C” grade, although it could easily be a “B+” if it would just develop some self-awareness and learn to get the hell out of its own way.